Plaintiff Was Not Entitled To Recover Code Civ. Proc. §§ 874.010 and 847.040 Fees/Costs Incurred Prior To Defendants’ Assertion Of Partition Claim, Nor To Fees/Costs Incurred Strictly For Plaintiff’s Benefit, And Undertaking Was Required To Stay The Case As Judgment Did Not Consist Of Only Fees/Costs.
Land Value Holdings, LLC v. Miller, Case No. A153992 (1st Dist., Div. 3 September 18, 2020) (unpublished), involved a residential property a decedent left to his niece, Clara, for the term of her natural life. Upon Clara’s death, the property was to be divided equally among six other nieces and nephews – or their surviving issues. A later probate order confirmed Clara’s life estate and named the nieces and nephews as remaindermen, but failed to include the phrase “or to their surviving issues by right of representation.”
Four years after Clara passed, the property was scheduled to be auctioned for unpaid property taxes. Plaintiff, relying on the theory of adverse possession, voluntarily paid the past due taxes and moved for quiet title and ejectment against twenty living issues of the remaindermen – some of whom entered into settlement negotiations and provided plaintiff with assignments and executed quitclaim deeds.
In the end, the trial court found plaintiff had achieved only a 41.66% ownership interest in the property based on the assignments it obtained, and that defendants were entitled to an interest in the property based on decedent uncle’s will - approving sale of the property and ordering division of the proceeds. Based on a partition claim asserted by defendants some three years into the litigation, the trial court granted in part each party’s Code Civ. Proc. §§ 874.010 and 847.040 fees request, to be paid by the other parties in proportion to their respective percentage interests. As to plaintiff, it sought $206,185.73 in fees, but was awarded only $98,301 – with the trial court determining fees incurred by plaintiff prior to the partition claim were not recoverable. Plaintiff also suffered a significant reduction to its $36,434.73 costs request – with defendants successfully moving to tax more than half because certain costs were found not reasonable, necessary, nor for the common benefit of the parties. Plaintiff then unsuccessfully moved for additional fees incurred for post-judgment work – with the trial court finding the fees requested in the late-filed fees request were not incurred for the common benefit of the parties, but for plaintiff alone.
After plaintiff appealed, two defendants moved ex-parte for disbursement of certain funds pursuant to the judgment. Plaintiff opposed – arguing the trial court did not have jurisdiction to rule because plaintiff’s appeal created an automatic stay. The trial court disagreed, because plaintiff had not given an undertaking, and granted defendants’ ex-parte request.
On appeal, plaintiff tried to overcome the trial court’s finding that plaintiff was entitled to recover fees/costs only from the date that defendants asserted a partition claim, and only for fees incurred for the common benefit – arguing it had worked for the common benefit from the get-go, and that its cause of action for declaratory relief was essentially a partition action. The 1/3 DCA found no abuse of discretion. Plaintiff’s declaratory relief cause of action sought a declaration as to which parties were responsible for the property taxes and upkeep of the property – not the equivalent of a partition action.
As to plaintiff’s argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant defendants’ ex-parte motion for disbursement, the appellate panel disagreed. There was no error in the trial court’s determination that the case was not automatically stayed, and that an undertaking was required to stay the case pending the appeal as the judgment did not only consist of costs/fees. (Code Civ. Proc. § 917.1; Dowling v. Zimmerman 85 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1432 (2001).)
Comments